Ruth O. Shaw, et al. v. James B. Hunt, JR., Governor of North Carolina, et al. (517 U.S. 899)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 13, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 517 U.S. 899 · 116 S. Ct. 1894
- Decided
- June 13, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit is here for a second time. In Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I), we held that plaintiffs whose complaint alleged that the deliberate segregation of voters into separate and bizarre-looking districts on the basis of race stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We remanded the case for further consideration by the District Court. That court held that the North Carolina redistricting plan did classify voters by race, but that the classification survived strict scrutiny and therefore did not offend the Constitution. We now hold that the North Carolina plan does violate the Equal Protection Clause because the State’s reapportionment scheme is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The facts are set out in detail in our prior opinion, and we shall only summarize them here. After the 1990 census, North Carolina’s congressional delegation increased from 11 to 12 members. The State General Assembly adopted a reapportionment plan, Chapter 601, that included one majority-black district, District 1, located in the northeastern region of the State. 1991 N. C. Sess. Laws, ch. 601. The legislature then submitted the plan to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as…
Excerpt of a 35,601-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.